ILNews

Opinions Jan. 17, 2013

January 17, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana
15A01-1110-CR-550
Criminal. Reverses convictions and sentences for intimidation of Dr. Edward Connor and intimidation of Heidi Humphrey and remands with instructions to vacate, which does not alter Daniel Brewington’s aggregate sentence. Affirms conviction for intimidation of Judge James Humphrey and for attempted obstruction of justice relating to Connor. Affirms in all other respects.

Steven A. Ballaban v. Bloomington Jewish Community, Inc., a/k/a Congregation Beth Shalom, Paul Eisenberg, Judith Rose, Sarah Wasserman, Lynne Foster Shifriss, and Roberta "Didi" Kerler
53A01-1207-CT-315
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Ballaban’s motion to correct error and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bloomington Jewish Community Inc. and other appellees on his complaint after he was fired as rabbi for Beth Shalom. Finds evidence supporting the ruling that the ministerial exception applies. Denies appellees’ request for attorney fees. Judges Vaidik and Bailey concur in result in separate opinions.  

Kyle W. Dixon v. Ara J. Dixon
34A05-1206-DR-303
Domestic relation. Affirms order granting the notice of intent to relocate filed by Ara Dixon. The mother’s intent to relocate was made in good faith and not in haste, and father would be able to maintain virtually the same parenting time schedule.

Marilyn Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-457
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and battery.

B.B., Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1205-JV-228
Juvenile.  Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for having committed what would be Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal if committed by an adult.

Jeff Clade v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1206-CT-509
Civil tort.  Grants rehearing to clarify original opinion and affirms, in which the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Hunt on a negligence claim. Judge Riley would deny rehearing.

Steven Newville v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1205-CR-379
Criminal. Affirms Class A felony conviction of attempted rape.

Garrick P. Twiford, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1205-CR-284
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT